Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Christopher Hayes was convicted by a jury on January 31, 2025, of six offenses committed while he was in state prison serving a sentence in another matter: aggravated battery by gassing upon a peace officer (count 1), custodial possession of a weapon (count 2), and four counts of assault with a deadly weapon while confined in state prison (counts 3-6). Immediately after the verdicts, the same jury found true allegations that Hayes had six prior felony convictions, including a June 29, 2018 conviction in case MA066467 for assault upon the person of another with a machinegun under section 245, subdivision (a)(3).
On February 5, 2025, the trial court denied Hayes's request to strike five of his six prior felony convictions and sentenced him as a third-strike offender to 50 years to life in state prison: 25 years to life on count 1 plus a consecutive 25 years to life on count 3, with concurrent 25-years-to-life terms on counts 4 through 6 and a stayed six-year term on count 2.
Hayes appealed, contending his 25-years-to-life sentence on count 1 was unauthorized because aggravated battery by gassing under section 4501.1 is not a serious or violent felony, so the court could not impose a third-strike sentence on that count.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal agreed. Under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C), when the current offense is not a serious or violent felony and the defendant has two or more prior serious or violent felony convictions, the defendant must be sentenced to twice the term for the current offense, not 25 years to life. Aggravated battery by gassing is not listed as a serious felony under section 1192.7, subdivision (c), or a violent felony under section 667.5, subdivision (c).
The Attorney General argued the conviction qualified as a serious felony under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(12), which covers assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate. After the court requested supplemental briefing under Government Code section 68081, the Attorney General conceded that without a jury finding that Hayes was a life prisoner, the court could not rely on that provision. The Court of Appeal accepted the concession, citing In re Cabrera (2023) 14 Cal.5th 476, which held that a sentencing court's finding on facts increasing punishment violates Sixth Amendment jury trial rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466.
The Attorney General alternatively argued that an exception applied because Hayes had a prior conviction for assault with a machinegun on a peace officer or firefighter under section 245, subdivision (d)(3). The court rejected this argument because there was no evidence in the record supporting it. Hayes's rap sheet showed a conviction under section 245, subdivision (a)(3), but the jury found true an allegation of a violation of section 243, subdivision (a)(3), not subdivision (d)(3), and the CDCR employee who testified did not indicate the offense was committed against a peace officer or firefighter. Because the court was not authorized to impose 25 years to life on count 1, the Court of Appeal vacated the entire sentence and remanded for a full resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- A third-strike sentence of 25 years to life cannot be imposed for a current offense that is not classified as a serious or violent felony under California law.
- Facts that increase a defendant's punishment, such as whether the defendant was a life prisoner, must be found by a jury under the Sixth Amendment.
- The prosecution must plead and prove a qualifying prior conviction for an exception to the standard third-strike sentencing rule to apply.
- When part of a sentence is vacated on review, a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate so the trial court can exercise its discretion in light of changed circumstances.
- The court did not address Hayes's inability-to-pay contention; he may present evidence of inability to pay fines and assessments at the new sentencing hearing.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Three Strikes enhancements and elevated sentences must be supported by proper jury findings and record evidence. It underscores the constitutional principle that facts increasing punishment must be found by a jury, not the sentencing court, and that the prosecution bears the burden of pleading and proving qualifying prior convictions.
The ruling also confirms that when a sentencing error affects one count, the appropriate remedy is a full resentencing on all counts, allowing the trial court to reconsider the entire sentencing structure. The court expressly left open the inability-to-pay issue, permitting Hayes to present evidence at the new hearing.